International Review of Business Research Papers
Vol.6, No.1 February 2010, Pp. 1-17
Utilization of Activity-Based Costing System in
Manufacturing Industries – Methodology, Benefits and
Limitations1
Boris Popesko2
The subject matter of this paper is the detailed consequences of putting in place an
Activity-Based Costing system and its structure within the manufacturing industry.
Moreover, it defines steps within ABC application, as well as analyzing the input and output
information and data required for effective utilization of the system. The close bond
between cost allocation methodology and application procedures is also determined within
this work, thereby describing all the features necessary for effective ABC implementation.
The results published herein come from research projects run over a 3-year timeframe,
ones focused on the methodology of implementing an Activity-Based Costing system and
its resultant influence on the efficiency of manufacturing businesses. The author has
conducted a number of ABC system applications in manufacturing industries in order to
gather the data and information necessary to define application and allocation
principles.The paper reveals two final outcomes. The first of these determines the
methodology of building an ABC system, looking at the essential steps necessary to
construct a system in an organization. The other describes cost allocation methodology,
which is performed within separate stages of implementation.The major part of paper is
dedicated to explaining the methodological steps within ABC implantation, which include a
feasibility study and review, activity and cost object definition, assigning costs to activities,
defining the appropriate cost drivers for individual activities, determining the output
measures for individual activities, calculating the primary rates of individual activities,
assigning the costs of support activities to primary activities, and calculating the costs of
defined cost objects.One important issue that determines the eventual form and structure
of the ABC system is senior managers’ demand for data utilizable for decision making. All
these requirements need to be defined in relation to the structure of the system. An
effectively implemented Activity-Based Costing system then provides accurate product
costing and proves a useful aid for managing business operations. In the final part of
paper, the results are discussed according to the all features of ABC application in the
manufacturing industry.
Field of research: Business Administration, Accounting
Introduction
The difficulty inherent in choosing a proper and accurate product costing method for
manufacturing enterprises has been widely discussed by academics and
practitioners. The important limitation of traditional (absorption) costing methods had
been deeply discussed along with advantages of other costing method as Variable
Costing or Activity-Based Costing (ABC). Despite the fact that issues relating to ABC
have been widely discussed by researchers and practitioners in the past ten years,
this modern concept still lacks general rules governing both methodology and cost
The article is processed as an output of a research project Methodology of the Activity-Based
Costing system implementation and its influence on the manufacturing industries efficiency registered
by the Grant Agency of Czech Republic under the registration number 402/07/P296.
2
Boris Popesko, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Faculty of Management
and Economics, Mostni 5139, Zlin, 760 01, Czech Republic, E-mail: popesko@fame.utb.cz
1
Popesko
allocation principles. Looking back, the concept of Activity-Based Costing has been
considered a sophisticated method of cost calculation since the early 1980s. The
ABC method was originally designed as a solution to the limitations of traditional
costing methods. The problems relating to these traditional costing methods had
been discussed with the need for improvement in the quality of costing systems
actually utilized in practice. However, one challenge faced when carrying out the cost
allocation procedure in ABC lies in the manner in which the methodology is applied.
When allocating costs in adherence to ABC principles, the user of the system also
has to strictly follow the individual steps within the implementation methodology,
where clearly defined allocation procedures and other methodical acts are performed.
This research study has no ambitions to judge the expediency of the ABC system for
recent or future users. In fact, the aim of this paper is to definitively explain the
necessary steps to apply ABC, as well as to clarify procedures for activity output
measurement and cost assignment. The paper also describes the benefits and
limitation of ABC implementation in manufacturing industries.
1. Literature review
1.1 Elementary principles of the Activity-based approach
The ABC concept was designed as a method which eliminates the shortages of the
traditionally used absorption costing methods. Traditional costing techniques were
used for the purposes of overhead cost allocation during the 20th century. These are
based on simplified procedures using principles of averages. In recent decades, such
conventional concepts have become obsolete due to two major phenomena. The first
of these is ever increasing competition in the marketplace, the necessity to reduce
costs and the effect of having more detailed information on company costs.
Secondly, there has been a change in the cost structure of companies. In terms of
the majority of overhead costs, traditional allocation concepts, based as they are on
overhead absorption rates, can often provide incorrect information on product costs.
Those shortages or limitations had been very closely described in the scientific
publications (Drury, 2001), (Lucas, 1997). The first criticism of traditional costing
concept was published by Kaplan and Johnson in (1987).
The effect that plays a role in determining an inaccurate overhead cost allocation
could be described (figure 1) as ‘averagization’ (Popesko, 2008). In other words, the
end results of allocating a proportionally average volume of costs of any type to all
cost objects. For example, the cost for transporting an item to customer A is the true
value of 50€, and transport to customer B is 900€. If we use traditional absorption
costing, the transport costs will become part of the sales or distribution overhead,
meaning all the costs of this type will be mixed together and then allocated through
the absorption rate to the cost object, in proportion to the specific type of direct cost.
All cost objects then will be subject to the principal average volume of transport costs.
In the example this means 130€ for customer A and 110€ for customer B.3 Above
mentioned problems could be sometimes be solved by application of differentiation
absorption costing, which uses several types of overhead with different allocation
The difference is caused by the different level of direct costs of product A and B. If the direct costs
are the same for both customers, and both customers order an identical product, the transport costs
for both products will also be same – the average amount. This example shows the injustice of
incorporating the relation of direct labour cost volume to trade or transport cost allocation. Direct
labour and transport or trade costs usually bear no relation to each other.
3
2
Popesko
bases, instead of summing absorption costing with one universal overhead and one
allocation base (Král, 2006). Another possible solution is the application of constcentre overhead rates instead of pland-wide rate (Drury, 2001). Despite that, the
problem of what here is termed ‘averagization’, is also significant in companies with a
very sophisticated system featuring cost centre overhead rates. Even if several
different overhead rates for different overhead cost pools are used to improve the
quality of cost assignment, the basis is still the same – the allocation base usually
represented by any type of direct cost. If the basis is only set to the easily measured
amount of direct costs, it is not possible to achieve accuracy in cost assignment,
because the true causes of cost consumption frequently have a natural base.
The absorption costing method could distort product costs because it allocates
overhead costs proportionally to the portion of direct costs. Glad and Becker (1996),
identified a number of fundamental limitations in traditional costing systems:
•
•
•
•
Labor, as a basis for assigning manufacturing overhead, is irrelevant as it is
significantly less than an overhead and many overheads do not bear any
relationship to labor costs of labor hours
The cost of technology is not assigned to products based on usage. Moreover,
direct (labor) cost is replaced by indirect (machine) cost(s)
Service-related costs have increased considerably in the last few decades.
Costing for these services was previously non-existent
Customer-related costs (finance, discounts, distribution, sales, after-sales
service, etc.) are not related to the product’s cost objects. Customer profitability
has become as crucial as product profitability
In some instances, especially when a company has a very homogenous output, few
departments with overheads and customers are very similar in nature, the simple
absorption costing method should provide very accurate outputs, despite its
limitations (Staněk, 2003). The absorption costing method boasts one very important
advantage - it is very simple to put into utilization. All the information the user has to
gather together can be found in accounting books or product material and labor
sheets.
Kim and Ballard (2002) defined the problems that can result from using traditional
methods of overhead costing as:
• Cost distortion hinders profitability analysis
• Little management attention to activities or processes of employees
3
Popesko
Figure 1: The ‘averagisation effect’ in the costing process
Allocation process
Real costs registered in the
accounting system
Costs allocated to product /
customer in the costing system
Transport
costs
Customer A
50€
Allocated
costs
Customer A
130€
Trade & Distribution
Overhead
All costs are mixed
together
Average portion of the
overhead costs according to
the volume of direct costs
Allocated
costs
Customer B
110€
Transport costs
Customer B
900€
Major difference between real
and allocated costs
The logical solution of registered disadvantages of traditional absorption costing
systems was to develop a costing method which would be able to incorporate and
utilize cause-and-effect instead of widely applied arbitrary allocation principles into
the company costing system (Drury, 2001), (Lucas, 1997). In situation, when the
portion of overheads exceeds 50% of total company costs and the company is using
single measures for allocation of overhead costs to the cost objects, the risk of an
incorrect product or customer costs calculation becomes significant.
Following the 1970s, there was a general realization of the limitations in traditional
costing systems. Greater competition and further inaccuracies in costing products
effectively encouraged businesses to seek out alternative methods, ones offering far
more transparency and enabling accurate and causal cost allocation. It was then, at
the dawn of the 1980s that the Activity-Based Costing (ABC) method came about,
being quickly adopted by enterprises of many and various types. The spread of ABC
owed a significant debt to advances in computing and IT thereby permitting practical
utilization of ABC principles.
The Activity-Based Costing method is a tool which could bring about significant
improvement in the quality of overhead cost allocation. The ABC process is able to
incorporate both physical measures and causal principles in the costing system. The
basic idea of ABC is to allocate costs to operations through the various activities in
place that can be measured by cost drivers. In other words, cost units are assigned
to individual activities, e.g. planning, packing, and quality control using a resource
cost driver at an initial stage with the costs of these activities being allocated to
specific products or cost objects in a second phase of allocation via an activity cost
driver.
4
Popesko
Activity-Based Costing methodology has been described, and further evolved, by
many authors (Drury 2001), (Glad and Becker, 1996), (Kaplan and Cooper, 1998),
(Staněk, 2003). The ABC process could vary from simple ABC, using only one level
of activities to expanded ABC, comprising various levels of activities and allowing for
mutual allocation of activity costs (Cookins, 2001).
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the ABC approach is not a truly revolutionary or
a completely new means of allocation. In essence, it has transformed the logical
relationships between costs and company outputs entering a costing system. Indeed,
ABC has incorporated logical allocation procedures from costing systems predating
its own complex methodology.
1.2 Implementation methodology
Together with the emergence of ABC methodology, issues relating to its practical
utilization and implementation have been presented by both academics and
practitioners. At this point, it is necessary to distinguish between two diverging
approaches addressing ABC system implementation. The first considers
implementation merely in terms of performing an ABC calculation and is primarily
focused on the system’s construction, cost flow, and allocation procedures. Drury
(2001), defined the necessary steps to set up an ABC system as follows:
1. Identifying the major activities taking place in an organization
2. Assigning costs to cost pools/cost centers for each activity
3. Determining the cost driver for every activity
4. Assigning the costs of activities to products according to their individual
demands on activities
These are described by other authors in a very similar manner. For example,
Staněk (2003), considers adjusting accounting input data as the initial procedure in
building the system. Furthermore, he prescribes the fourth step of implementation as
calculating the activity rate, which is defined as an activity unit cost.
The above-defined steps of system design could be considered as a very brief
overview for successful implementation process. Some other authors define much
more detailed application procedures. The steps in the ABC application methodology
defined by Glad and Becker (1996) are:
1. Determine the nature of costs and analyse them as direct traceable costs, activity
traceable costs and non-traceable costs (or unallocated costs)
2. Account for all traceable costs per activity, distinguishing between primary and
secondary activities
3. Identify the company’s processes, activities and tasks, and create process
flowcharts
4. Determine cost drivers for each activity and use output measures to calculate
activity recovery rates
5. Trace all secondary activities to primary activities, so that the combined activity
rates include all support costs
6. Identify which cost objects are to be priced. Compile the bill of activities for each
cost object
7. Multiply the activity recovery rates by the quantity of output consumed as
specified in the bill of activities. The sum of these calculated costs will give the
activity-traced cost of the cost object
5
Popesko
8. Direct costs and non-traceable costs should be added to the cost calculated
above to give the total cost of the cost object
The other approach to ABC implantation not only encompasses the structure, design
of the system, and tackles the question of how costs are allocated in ABC, but also
deals with issues related to its implementation within an organization. In other words,
the question of how the ABC system must operate within an enterprise. This
approach considers all the necessary features that have to be addressed in the
process of setting up an ABC system. Many authors have described implementation
in great detail (Cokins, 2001), (Glad and Becker, 1996), (Innes and Mitchell, 1998).
The procedures they analyze are far wider ranging than the steps involved in system
design because of the focus on organizational, personnel, capacity, and effectivity
issues of ABC system building and utilization.
Probably the most important matter solved by this approach to ABC application,
which analyzes performance during its set-up, is the question of the efficacy of the
future system. ABC usually processes large quantities of financial and non-financial
data. If we want to maintain the effectiveness of the system, it is necessary to ensure
that costs for obtaining that kind of the data do not outweigh the benefits of the
system. Should this not be possible, the application of the system is ineffective.
Applying ABC brings different benefits for different organizations. According to the
characteristics of the system, we can say that putting the system in place would be
effective in organizations with a complex and heterogeneous structure of activities,
products, and customers. Petřík (2007) describes organizations with the most to gain
from ABC implementation as:
• Those with a high frequency of different cost objects – this presumption is
valid for either production companies, or for service or trading companies
• Those with a large portion of indirect and supporting costs
• Those with a great number of processes and activities
2. Research method conducted
As the steps described when setting up an ABC system seem rather too general for
practical usage, case studies were carried out so as to define the detailed
characteristics of design and implementation. The resultant findings are based on
three projects of full ABC system implementation conducted by the author’s research
team in the past two years. The organizations selected for this purpose were three
manufacturing companies from the plastics and automotive industries, all with a
relatively complex structure of products, customers, and performed activities.
Table 1 gives an overview of the case studies performed and the objects of these
implementations. The quantity of product types and customers is continually
fluctuating, so the figures in the table are estimated and approximate values. The
number of activities represents the amount of the same as defined within the model,
these being designated as either primary (p) or secondary (s) types. The relative
portion of overhead costs could be interpreted as fairly low when taking into
consideration the effect expected from implementing ABC (Petřík, 2007). The
businesses in question handle a high quantity of semi-finished supplies and
components, the value of which is considered as direct material cost. The effective
management of overhead costs is desirable in spite of the final products being very
sensibly priced with very low profit margins.
6
Popesko
Table 1: Overview of performed case studies (own research)
Case study/company
Industry
Number of employees
% of overhead costs
Number of product types
Number of customers
ABC MODEL
Number of activities (p+s)
1
Plastics
96
24%
200
40
2
Plastics
429
16%
100
15
3
Automotive
500
25%
400
100
20+7
34+7
30+13
Widely recognized procedures governing implantation, as described in section 1.2,
were those followed within the research projects. Great attention was paid to the
design of the systems and cost allocation procedures. Furthermore, coherent issues
relating to the effectiveness of implementation were considered.
The findings accomplished through the case studies have been previously published
in much more detail (Popesko, 2008). This paper presents the final application
methodology, which have been based on performed case studies and its findings.
3. Implementation methodology - Major findings
The first part of the ABC application process was to define the appropriate hierarchy
of steps involved, these being:
1. A feasibility study and review (Glad and Becker, 1996)
2. Identifying the major activities and cost objects within the ABC model
3. Assigning costs to activities
4. Calculating the primary rates of individual activities
5. Calculating the costs of defined cost objects
These stages were worked out whilst the case studies were being conducted. It
became apparent through practical implementation that it was necessary to build
upon Drury´s (2001) elementary methodology. Prior to planning the structure of the
systems, an important measure was a feasibility study and review. This step is
required in order to analyze the effectiveness and impact of implantation, as well as
to identify all the features and characteristics of a future system. The form of ABC put
in place also depends on the purpose and information desired from it. The individual
stages of the implementation process are described in the following chapters.
3.1
Feasibility study and review
As mentioned above, the main aim of this phase of the ABC implantation is to define
the benefits it provides and the methods for utilizing the outputs of system
information, as well as the costs relating to implementation and operation.
The initial impulse for putting ABC in place normally comes from the management of
a company. There is an expectation that one will reap dividends through improved
cost management levels and the superior quality of information provided by the
system. The reasons senior managers consider going ahead with implementing ABC
could be discerned as the following (Popesko, 2008):
7
Popesko
• A high number of expensive overhead activities; plus construction, project
management, and maintenance
• A relatively high portion of overhead costs
• Intense competition
• Invisible relations between customers’ projects and costs
• An intention to reduce costs
• Creating an effective tool for costing products for sellers
The anticipated benefits brought about by the information outputs of an ABC system
need to be very carefully analyzed along with their features. The essential problem is
the difficulty of quantifying the economic benefits of ABC implementation and
especially its impact on company profitability (Staněk, 2003). However, future users
of the information generated could, during this phase, define the contribution of the
same for their own purposes. Implementation of the system will require considerable
effort and expenses and it should be questioned whether or not it will add value to
the business. Information overload as well as the capability of the management team
to absorb the content of the system will certainly be factors to consider in this
respect.
Beside the ABC benefit analysis, the cost analysis of ABC implementation has to be
made within this phase of implementation. The feasibility study should look at the
normal cost considerations which can be summarized as follows (Glad and Becker,
1996):
• Development costs:
o outside assistance;
o internal staff costs;
o ABC/M system costs (costs for purchasing of ABC IT system);
o support system changes;
• Operating costs:
o capturing costs (costs of data capturing);
o system running costs;
o interpretation costs;
3.2
Identifying the major activities and cost objects within the ABC model;
Many authors (Drury, 2001), (Glad and Becker, 1996), (Staněk, 2003) consider the
definition of activities as the starting point of an ABC implementation process. As was
witnessed after performing the case studies, creating a single definition for activities
without the cost objects being also defined proved insufficient for successful
implementation. The structure of activities can be related to the cost object structure
because different data are processed and various outputs are desired of the
individual cost objects. Consequently, it is necessary to split this phase of ABC
implementation into two coherent sections: i.e. defining activities and defining cost
objects.
8
Popesko
Activity definition
Activities form the basis of measurement of all relevant information in an ABC
system. Therefore, it is imperative to define the activity at the right level of detail. Too
much will cause information overload and too little may lead to insufficient information
being available for analysis. Several procedures defining activities may be used:
• Analysis of the organizational structure of an enterprise
• Analysis of the workplace
• Analysis of personnel costs
Applying all three ensures that no activity is overlooked.
Moreover, several important guidelines relating to an activity’s definition can be
composed as follows:
• Every defined activity should be related to a relevant cost pool; the objective of
activity definition is not to conduct process analysis, but to set up the costing
system
• Actions and tasks performed within an activity should be precisely described to
avoid any misunderstanding in later stages of application
• A code number may be allotted to all individual activities for easier processing
• It is suitable to define the appropriate number of activities, totaling between 20
to 30
Activities defined within the ABC system are classifiable as either primary or
secondary (support) activities. Primary activities might relate to actions which the
organization performs to satisfy external demands, while secondary refers to those
performed to serve the needs of internal “customers” (Porter, 1985). This
classification is essential for cost allocation procedures, as described in later
chapters.
The Porter model could prove useful as a framework for an activity structure
especially suited to manufacturing industries. Porter classified the full value chain as
nine interrelated primary and secondary activities. These activities are then further
delineated into primary activities that add value to the product from a customer point
of view, and support or secondary activities, which ensure the efficient performance
of the primary activities. (Porter,1985), (Glad and Becker, 1996) Even though Porter’s
model has received criticism for its tight focus on operational activities and for
neglecting innovation and service processes, its foundation proves very suitable for
the construction of a company costing system. (Hromková, 2004), (Popesko, 2008).
The activities identified might also be collated within aggregate processes, which
could relate to specific cost objects.
Cost object definition
Traditional costing methods normally utilize a single cost object – a product or
service. However, an effective and accurate costing system has to incorporate
multiple cost objects. Distinct products and services usually comprise the most
frequently used cost objects. In reality though, it is possible to discern a much wider
spectrum of cost objects. Using multiple cost objects makes costing systems far more
complex, but this principle is an important requirement for accuracy. How can one
allocate the costs of a sales department right down to product level when the inputs
9
Popesko
consumed by each customer served by the department may vary widely, even if only
one type of product is produced?
The structures of both activities and cost objects are very closely tied. This is why
defining activities and cost objects in one phase of implementation proved efficient.
The close bonds between an activity and a cost object’s structure is also upheld
by traditional classifications of activities, where every category of activity is related to
a different cost object. The activities are classified as (Kaplan, Cooper, 1998):
1. Unit level activities, which are performed each time a unit of a product or
service is produced
2. Batch level activities, which are performed each time a batch of goods is
produced
3. Product sustaining activities, which are performed to enable individual
products to be produced and sold
4. Customer sustaining activities, which are performed each time a customer is
served in situations where the customer forms the cost object
5. Facility sustaining activities, which are performed to support a facility’s general
manufacturing process; these include administrative staff, plant management,
and property costs
The case studies performed demonstrate the need to identify multiple cost
objects as the product, project (a special type of product, produced for limited time),
and customer which is also true for manufacturing industries, the reasons being:
• Industries serve a number of very different customers, each of whom
consumes differing quantities of customer related activities (costs)
• Individual projects (products) consume differing quantities of product
sustaining costs.
• The various products of projects may vary in profitability, but the ultimate
target is to reach an appropriate level of customer profitability. The ABC model
should provide data for cost object profitability measurement
3.3
Assigning costs to activities
Assigning costs to activities represents the first stage of the allocation process
within the ABC system. Firstly, not all company costs will be allotted to the activities
defined. Company costs could be classified according to their nature under (Drury,
2001):
• Direct traceable costs – those allocated directly to a cost object using the
same principles as traditional costing methods
• Activity-traceable costs – those allocated to identified activities
• Non-traceable costs (or unallocated costs), which could be allocated to a cost
object in proportion to other costs, or may be covered by a small increase in
the target margin
Cost allocation to defined activities might prove very complicated in practice and
eventually take up an important amount of the implementation process time. The
reason is that the structure of activities and structure of a company’s department
usually clash somehow. The activity cost matrix could be invaluable for assigning
company costs classified in company cost centers to activities. Very often it is
necessary to define a resource cost driver in order to effectively allocate such costs.
10
Popesko
Resource cost drivers help to assign costs to a specific activity, when the cost in
evidence is aggregated in general book entries. The following resource cost drivers
were used in the case studies:
• Personnel workload – for allocating personnel costs to activities
• Square meters – for allocating rent, premises depreciation, heating, and
indirect electricity to activities
• The quantity of machines, tools, etc.
• Estimation
3.4
Calculating the primary rates of individual activities
Calculating the primary rates of individual activities can be conducted in four steps:
1. Setting appropriate activity cost drivers for individual activities
2. Determining the output measures of individual activities
3. Calculating the primary rates of individual activities
4. Assigning the costs of support activities to primary activities
Setting appropriate activity cost drivers for individual activities
Activity cost drivers (ACD) can be defined as the factors of transactions that are
significant determiners of costs (Drury 1989). Activity cost drivers should generate
data about which factor causes the occurrence of the individual types of overhead
costs gathered within an activity. ACDs consist of three types (Drury, 2001):
1. Transaction drivers (number of transactions)
2. Duration drivers (amount of time required to perform an activity)
3. Intensity drivers (direct charge of consumed resources to activities)
The ACDs defined for a manufacturer may potentially resemble the allocation bases
utilized by traditional absorption costing, particularly for manufacturing activities
where duration drivers are used. However, should a large portion of direct costs and
those of manufacturing activity exist, the use of the ABC system solely for the
purposes of quantifying costs of product cost objects might not be efficient.
A highly important requirement for a defined cost driver is the ability of an enterprise
to measure the driver and quantify its output measure. If the quantity of a cost driver
consumed by an enterprise and individual cost object cannot be gauged, such a cost
driver cannot be used for cost allocation purposes.
Occasionally, a cost driver might take the form of a determiner of cost variability.
This means that if a company performs a lower number of activity units, the total
costs of an activity will change. In such instances, regress and correlation analysis
may be used to determine an appropriate activity cost driver. Nevertheless, it is far
more common for activity costs to be largely fixed in character. Under these
circumstances, a cost driver is simply a gauge of cost allocation.
Determining output measures of individual activities
The next step in the ABC implantation process is to determine the output measures
of individual activities. These represent the number of activity units consumed during
a specific period. In fact, an output measure determines activity capacity and is used
to work out activity unit costs.
11
Popesko
The most significant provision governing activity capacity measurement is that of
setting the correct activity capacity, this capacity being determined by the level of its
denominator. These denominator levels are frequently applied in manufacturing
operations where capacity can be technically and very precisely measured. In the
case of overhead activity measurement, the setting of appropriate denominator levels
could prove more complicated because overhead activities usually no have technical
parameters that might easily be gauged. The capacity of overhead activities is
usually measured by working out the number of output measures within a cost
period.
Output measures are, in the ABC system, used to determine the recovery rate of
each cost pool/activity. Two alternatives exist for this purpose (Glad and Becker,
1996) actual output, which uses the actual output of a particular output measure,
and maximum capacity, which sets the constant capacity level for each activity.
Generally, calculating activity recovery rates based on actual output could prove
easier to perform, since no maximum capacity determination is necessary.
Calculations based on the maximum capacity are more accurate and provide for
greater possibilities of utilization, e.g. capacity purposes. The challenge is to work out
how to set the maximum capacity of overhead activities.
Calculating the primary rates of individual activities
Activity capacity output measures are used for quantifying activity unit costs, the rate
for which is calculated as follows:
(1)
Activity cost per unit, also called primary rates could be then used in the ensuing
stages of ABC implementation as important measurements, which could be
analyzed.
Assigning the costs of support activities to primary activities
Following the calculation of primary rates, the next thing to do is to allocate
secondary activities to primary ones. It is possible to solve all of the problems relating
to secondary activity costs if the amount of secondary cost driver units can be
quantified. These are consumed by individual primary activities, such as the number
of employees, SAP licenses and square meters being consumed by a primary activity
like ‘Quality Control’. The costs of secondary activities are then allocated to primary
activities using the output measures of secondary activities, thereby calculating the
secondary activity costs of primary activities. Total primary activity costs are then
worked out by combining the primary activity cost (cost pool) plus secondary activity
costs (costs of secondary activities allotted to a primary activity). An identical
calculation can also be performed for activity unit costs, where the unit costs of an
activity (combined rate) are equal to the sum of primary activity unit costs (primary
rate) plus the unit costs of secondary activities consumed by a primary activity
(secondary rate):
12
Popesko
The difficulty lies in the fact that these secondary activities and their output
measures are not solely consumed by primary activities but other secondary
activities, as well as by these activities themselves (Figure 2). This problem has also
been discussed by some authors (Jacob, Mashall, Smith, 1993).
Figure 2: Example of mutually and self-consumed secondary activities in the cost
model (Popesko 2009)
Figure 2 shows how any activities mutually consume other activity outputs. If, for
example, we analyze the activity entitled Human Resources Management (HRM), it is
shown that this activity consumes outputs of other secondary activities as IS/IT,
Finance & Accounting, amongst others. These types of activities, providing as they
do additional outputs for other secondary activities, may be described as reciprocal
secondary activities. Another challenge to be faced is the self-consumption of
activities. The HRM activity provides services for other company departments and
activities according to the number of employees. Consequently, the number of
employees is chosen as the ACD for this activity. However, this activity is performed
by a specific quantity of employees. According to allocation principles, this activity
(HRM) should be charged by the specific costs charge, as calculated by the activity
primary rate and then denoted as other activities. This type of secondary activity,
which consumes its own outputs, might then be entitled a cyclical secondary
activity, because mutually consumed and self-consumed activities cause a cyclical
allocation of costs.
Managers and accountants facing such a challenge have to find a way of performing
this type of costing allocation, because the method in which service costs are
allocated can significant affect product cost accuracy. The simultaneous consumption
of service department outputs is a relatively well-known issue. The most common
13
Popesko
means for allocating service department costs to production departments (Jacob,
Mashall, Smith, 1993) are the direct, step and reciprocal methods. Allocation
procedures which also include and solve the self consumption of activities could be
used. Firstly, the direct method allots all service department costs directly to
production departments, completely ignoring any services provided by any individual
service department to another. In contrast, the step method considers some, but not
all, provisions between service departments. Costs are allocated one department at a
time via this method, but only to any remaining departments, i.e. those not yet
allocated. Lastly, the reciprocal method explicitly recognizes all reciprocal services. It
uses simultaneous equations to, firstly, reallocate service department costs among all
the service departments, and then to production departments. The reciprocal method
may effectively be used for service department cost allocation in ABC. Despite the
not even reciprocal method analyses the self consumption of activities, could be very
effective for practical use. Any more complex mathematical methods could be also
used, which also incorporate the self consumption of activities. One such method
was also used in the case studies we conducted (Popesko, 2009) or is described by
some authors (Jacob, Mashall, Smith, 1993; Žůrek 2009).
3.5
Calculating the costs of defined cost objects
The final stage of ABC calculation involves working out the costs of defined cost
objects. The objective of this phase is to quantify the number of activity units
consumed by individual cost objects. This calculation is performed on a bill of
activities this being a description of the “journey” a product (or another cost object)
makes through the various activities en route towards completion. It is of great
importance to accurately work out the multiple cost drivers concerned and to
construct an intelligible costing statement for different types of users.
4. Utilization of ABC information outputs
Performed case studies showed that the primary benefit of application, as mentioned
in theoretical sources – the higher accuracy of product costs quantification, did not
really play such a vital role. The variations between the original costing and that of
ABC, caused by a different allocation of overheads, were at a relatively low level, in
average about 10%. On the other side, the ABC implementation in researched
enterprises brought about a significant improvement in information for managers. In a
further phase of the system’s utilization, a tool was constructed for preliminary
calculations for price negotiation purposes.
Implementation of the ABC system in manufacturing enterprises produced two major
benefits:
•
•
Firstly, a better understanding of process and activity costs, enabling managers
to make decisions in order to optimize the costs of an activity.
Secondly, correctly quantifying the costs of distinct production activities. As the
production of individual products consists of different operations, the ABC system
is able to precisely describe the manner in which a product goes through the
14
Popesko
various operations, as well as accurately calculating the costs of those
operations.
5. Discussion
Utilization of the ABC system in companies in the manufacturing industry with similar
production to that presented in our case studies brings some specifics. Despite the
relatively low portion of overheads, which are allocated differently than with an
absorption costing system, the variations in product and project costs may prove
important so as to produce better evidence of costs of individual operations’ activities.
Implementation also showed that the ABC model applied in the case studies was
unnecessarily detailed for costing purposes. Most of the activities could be gathered
together into several major cost pools or activities. Nevertheless, the level of detail is
adequate for analyzing processes and activities.
Should the ABC system only be implemented to improve the field of overhead cost
allocation, the benefits of the system would be debatable. The same could be
brought about by a much simpler calculation system, but the effectiveness of ABC’s
principal use for allocating project management costs or those for a sales department
is undeniable.
The application of ABC or other more sophisticated costing systems in manufacturing
industries continues to be widely discussed by academics and potential users. ABC
implementations are much more common in the area of services, as well as energy
companies, telecommunications, and financial institutions. Manufacturers often
consider ABC a rather unsuitable tool, in addition to being very expensive and not
resulting in significant benefits. One reason for this is that senior managers too often
do not think of ABC as a complex system, i.e. one used not only for costing
purposes, but also for many other functions.
The principles defined above can be considered as guidelines applicable for
manufacturing companies when implementing ABC. They are quite general in nature
so might also prove useful in any situation where practical application could be highly
specific and differ from another.
Conclusion
The Activity-Based Costing system, whose fundamental principles have been
explained in this paper, is central to Activity-Based Cost Management. Information
provided by this system boasts wider areas of application compared to that of
traditional costing systems. Besides the more valuable quantification of costs
allocated to cost objects and the detection of relations between cost consumption
and operation, the existence of different types of cost objects also allows costs to be
analyzed at differing levels of managerial decisions.
Activity-Based Management methods have a broad range of uses, permitting the
empowering utilization of ABC information for a wide variety of company functions
and operations such as process analysis, strategy support and time-based
accounting, monitoring wastage, as well as quality and productivity management.
In addition to information outputs, which could dramatically improve the quality of the
decision making process, it is also necessary to define any disadvantages of the
ABC/M system. Applying this method requires higher costs and difficulties could arise
15
Popesko
during its use due to the various activities that can appear. The implementation of
ABC/M is a collective process and brings with it new cost calculation rules whilst
presupposing a change of attitude and behavior.
The results of case study we performed show an example of the system being
utilized in the processing industry, a characteristic of which is a large portion of
material costs. Implementation showed that despite limited impact in the field of
overhead cost allocation, the benefits in the areas of process and activity analysis
meant it proved a success.
References
Cokins, G. 1996, Activity-based cost management: Making it work: A manager’s
guide to implementing and sustaining an effective ABC system, Irwin, Chicago
Cokins, G. 2001, Activity-Based Cost Management: An Executive's Guide, John
Wiley and Sons, ISBN 047144328X
Drury, C. 1989, Activity-based costing, Management accounting (UK), Sep. 1989: p.
60-63
Drury, C. 2001, Management and Cost Accounting, Fifth Edition, Thomson Learning,
ISBN 1-86152-536-2
Glad, E., Becker, H. 1996, Activity-Based Costing and Management, John Wiley and
Sons, ISBN 0-471-96331-3
Hromková, L., 2004, Teorie průmyslových a podnikatelských systémů I., Tomas Bata
University Press, ISBN 80-7318-038-3
Innes, J., Mitchell, F. 1998, Practical Guide To Activity-Based Costing, Kogan Page,
ISBN 0749426209
Jacobs, F., Marshall, R., Smith, S. 1993, An alternative method for allocating service
department costs, Ohio CPA Journal; Apr 1993; 52,2; ABI/INFORM Global
pg.20
Kannainen, J., Varila, M., Paranko, J. 2002, The Unused Capacity Trap, Pre-Prints of
the 12th, International Working Seminar on Production Economics. Innsbruck,
Austria, 18-22 February, Vol. 3. pp. 229-240.
Kaplan, R., Johnson, H. 1987, Relevance lost: Rise and fall of management
accounting, Boston:Harvard
Kaplan, R., Cooper, R. 1998, Cost & Effect – Using Integrated Cost Systems to Drive
Profitability and Performance, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN978-087584-788-7
Kim, Y., Ballard, G. 2002, Case study – Overhead cost analysis, Proceedings IGLC,
Gramado, Brasil
Král, B. 2006, Manažerské účetnictví, Management Press, ISBN 80-7261-141-0
Lucas, M. 1997, Absorption costing for decision making, in Management Accounting,
ABI/INFORM GLOBAL, pg. 42
Nekvapil, T. 2004, Netradičně o ABM – Controller a zombie, Controlling 4/2004, ISSN
1801-6251
Petřík, T. 2007, Procesní a hodnotové řízení firem a organizací, Linde Praha,
ISBN 978-80-7201-648-8
Popesko, B., Novák, P. 2008, Principles of overhead cost allocation, from Issues in
Global Business and Management Research - Proceedings of the 2008
International Online Conference on Business and Management (IOCBM 2008),
Universal-Publishers USA, ISBN 9781599429441
16
Popesko
Popesko, B. 2008, Activity-based costing applications in the plastics industry – Case
study, from Issues in Global Research in Business and Economics, FIZJA
International, Orlando USA, ISSN 1940-5391
Popesko, B. 2009, How to manage the costs of service departments using ActivityBased Costing, in International Review of Business Research Papers, World
Business Institute, Melbourne, Australia ISSN: 1832-9543
Porter, M. 1985, Competetive advantage, New York: Free Press
Potkány, M. 2008, Personnel outsourcing processes, E+M Economics and
Management, Vol. 4, ISSN 1212-3609
Sebestyen, Z., Juhász, V. 2003, The impact of the costs of unused capacity on
production planning of flexible manufacturing systems, Periodica Polytechnica
Ser. Soc. Man. Sci. Vol.11, No.2, PP 185-200, ISSN 1587-380
Staněk, V. 2003, Zvyšování efektivnosti procesním řízením nákladů, Grada
Publishing, ISBN 80-247-0456-0
Žůrek, M. 2009, Activity-Based Management - Competitive market inside the
organization, Dissertation thesis, Tomas Bata University Press
17